A new U.S. senate bill has been redrafted to give President Obama the power of control to shut down the Internet in case of emergency situations. The 55-page draft that was obtained by CNET appears to permit the president to seize temporary control over private-sector networks in a cybersecurity emergency.If the bill is passed, it would allow control to temporary disable Internet traffic in private-sectors. "A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001."
Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which contains large Internet and telecommunication companies such as Verizon, Verisign, Nortel and Carnegie Mellon University said "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
The bill is still unclear what power of control President Obama might receive until it is properly addressed after the Senate's summer recess.
The bill is to protect against cyber threats and attacks on critical infrastructures such as the power grid in case of an attack from a broadband connection. Such control over the Internet may never be executed but with hackers getting more creative, national security becomes top priority in emergencies.
Thanks for the tip Hurmoth
They can't shut down the internet. Bill doesn't control the entire world. The internet is designed to be resilient and recover from failures.
Even if he worked out some way to shut off all the public internet accesses to the USA, anyone with a private corporate link would be able to use that and proxies to connect via another country.
Likewise I'm sure there would be other avenues, through satellite for example.
Even if he worked out some way to shut off all the public internet accesses to the USA, anyone with a private corporate link would be able to use that and proxies to connect via another country.
Likewise I'm sure there would be other avenues, through satellite for example.
Did anyone else find this hillarious? Bill isn't a person -- they're talking about A bill i.e. a proposed law. I just find it amazing that you can post something so clearly misinformed with such an obvious misunderstanding.
Lol.
Lol.
I didn't even see "Bill" as in Bill Clinton or person when writing it.. I wrote it as "A Bill" as in a law.
Thanks for pointing that out!
I think he just read the title and commented without reading the story. The story clearly explains a few times about a law.
Lol.
I didn't even see "Bill" as in Bill Clinton or person when writing it.. I wrote it as "A Bill" as in a law.
Thanks for pointing that out!
I think he just read the title and commented without reading the story. The story clearly explains a few times about a law.
Lol your article was perfect I just couldn't stop laughing when I read his comment.
Well there you go, I thought Bill was the president of the United States.
It a bit confusing because the title of the article says "Bill could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies"
I guess if you were American that may mean "A LAW could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies"
Thanks for the correction - LOL
Last edited by dvb2000 on 30 Aug 2009 - 02:35
It a bit confusing because the title of the article says "Bill could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies"
I guess if you were American that may mean "A LAW could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies"
Thanks for the correction - LOL
Lol s'all good just sounded awesome. For the record I'm from Australia but we have a similar concept here :p
But.. but.. Obama is the president of the US oO Who is this Bill you were thinking about
It a bit confusing because the title of the article says "Bill could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies"
I guess if you were American that may mean "A LAW could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies"
Thanks for the correction - LOL
But the first line in the article reads:
Clearly explains Bill is a law, not a person
free speech upto a point, aslong as it doesnt directly effect someone/ a group. Like that speech directly effects a politician. And also doesnt promote violence
That would not be free speech but a threat against someones life. Regardless of who's name you use, a politician or someone else, you could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree. The government may take more action against someone of importance but thats besides the point.
Free speech has to do more with the people right to say whatever they want - not to make threats to people.
hence his point.. he is only talking about free speech.. not freaking intending on what he wants to do..
Free speech has to do more with the people right to say whatever they want - not to make threats to people.
Actually, it is only a threat if he said that he "is" going to kill [politician], not if he said he "wants" to or "wishes" to. But You're right, just like yelling fire in the middle of a theater when there isn't one.
Obama didn't write the bill..... I mean comon, Oren Hatch wanted sweeping powers in the past to take out computers who were downloading illegally... littaerly take out..... it's coming from BOTH sides of the parties
And as for him "taking over the internet..." as you put it, you clearly have not read the article.
It has nothing to do with Obama.
You're so right. Let's also remember that Obama spent MORE than Bush did... in his first six months in office. Yeah, that whole 8 years was real bad.
Oh, you can also thank Obama for 10%+ unemployment.
A lot of people will always shout how bad Bush was, whilst not seeing Obama is spending MORE money, money that's not his.
I agree with you sir!
Oh, you can also thank Obama for 10%+ unemployment.
A lot of people will always shout how bad Bush was, whilst not seeing Obama is spending MORE money, money that's not his.
Take ANY president from any developed nation, and you will most likely find that he has spent more money in his first 6 months that whoever was sitting in office 2 terms before that. Unless you mean money gone into laws and such. But let's not forget that the situation obama encountered was different than the was bush encountered.
Oh, you can also thank Obama for 10%+ unemployment.
A lot of people will always shout how bad Bush was, whilst not seeing Obama is spending MORE money, money that's not his.
Please show me numbers, because $750 billion of that was under bush's control when its spending passed... just because its spend partly after he's out of office doesn't put it on Obama's side... still happened under bush... and people that say he ruined the country already... he created all this unemployment... that started WAY before Obama... it's not getting worse or better its following suddenly a trend... Obama isn't behind what we see now... and nothing he's done has made it "worse" yet... yet...
This time claiming a Senatorially authored fascist bill is somehow Obama's doing...
I love how people would rather blindly go into a rage about something they don't understand, only to promote their group.
If they REALLY were against "tyranny, socialism, fascism, etc etc" they'd have turned on Bush before the end of his first term.
If they REALLY were against "tyranny, socialism, fascism, etc etc" they'd have turned on Bush before the end of his first term.
So if we disagree with our President because of fundamental idealogical reasons, we're still racists because we supposedly have some hatred towards someone with different color skin. Wow. I had no idea I was a racist.
I guess we can make generalizations about you. Blindly following your leader, advocating fascist policies brought forth by said leader. Like it or not, this bill directly benefits him. You're blind if you think it didn't come from him. Who drafted it? Democrats. Who's the defacto leader of the Democrat party? President Obama. Learn a bit about politics before making a fool out of yourself.
There are already presential executive orders which allow the president of the USA to effectively remain in office for as long as he/she sees fit without the need for further elections (ie a thinly veiled dictatorship) in the event of an "emergency", but that can be almost anything.
This will be the first step in eradicating and cracking down on those people who are seen as a "threat" to the government and those in power - cut off the internet so no-one will be able to communicate with each other in times of crisis, or to spread so called conspiracy theories etc..
End times are coming - day by day by day.
Although..I have to say to the congress...keep it up guys and gals...keep trying to pass outragious bills and laws thinking there won't be any reprocussions for it in the voting booth. And we will see you in 2010....maybe.
Although..I have to say to the congress...keep it up guys and gals...keep trying to pass outragious bills and laws thinking there won't be any reprocussions for it in the voting booth. And we will see you in 2010....maybe.
+1 ... people need to see the word 'bill' before they see 'Obama' ... perhaps the word 'bill' needs to be capialized to emphasize the point?
Now, I wonder why a member of one of the world's most wealthy and powerful families would want to do that?....ahem.
This is just a BILL...nothing to get worried about.
WTF do u meen this is just a bill?
This is potential law... this is surly something to worry about. The only people who don't worry about what laws get created are those people that live in dictatorships.
This is potential law... this is surly something to worry about. The only people who don't worry about what laws get created are those people that live in dictatorships.
4% out of 8k per congress get passed...nothing to worry about until either the senate/house approves it.
No, but the recent attacks on our civil liberties is seriously getting out of hand. Not that I really care about the internet specifically, but it does represent free speech in this day and age and giving up control of that to the government just seems wrong.
Calling up one telecom (or multiple) and telling them to shut down their servers you might be able to do (and probably could do today, and very likely would be able to do law or no law).
Shutting down the internet -- a network specifically designed to survive a nuclear holocaust -- is a very different thing, and no one has the ability to do that at this point. ****, IP works over freaking HAM radio and handcranks now thanks to the loonies out there. Where there are two cans with a piece of string between them, you have the internet.
I am all for some strategy to protect us from Cyberterrorism but I am not sure I trust this administration to not have ulterior motives.
I also don't see how you could compare the grounding of plains to the shut down of the internet. Sure grounding planes is going to have a massive impact on business but not even close to the scale of an internet shut down.
Yeah, usually people are asleep while their liberties are stolen out from under them. When you wake up, welcome to Nazi Germany.
+5
Funnily enough, one of the original design intentions of the internet was to make it still function in the event of a nuclear explosion. Hence why packets have so many different routes they can take in order to get to their destination. That way, after an attack, the government could still... I dunno, give the order to fire a bunch of their nukes.
So as long as the youtube servers weren't destroyed in the attack, you could still watch teh lolcats.
Pretty soon we'll be taking the white and blue out of our flag leaving just the red.
Pretty soon we'll be taking the white and blue out of our flag leaving just the red.
Deep.
Sure, as long as the big off switch is nice and secure, otherwise a hacker could cause horrific damage to the economy... it's a good job security is so tight in government systems... *cough*GaryMcKinnon*cough*
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/
Wonder why that one never had anything done about it... a government body couldn't possibly want the ability to stealthily eavesdrop and shut down major portions of the internet... oh wait!
Actually, it would work for most of the internet. It's happened before.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/313...ternet_Sabotage
Obama and any future administration will support this bill in the end. The internet is too powerful a communication tool to just let the minions use freely. Imagine the government wants to do things they know the people will rebel against, what could be easier than flicking a switch and cutting off your news communication sources. Then you'll be forced to watch Main Stream Media that is a complete joke and why more of us don't even bother with it anymore.
PS: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're not being followed ;-)
Like European and Asian countries going let to Obama take control of thier internet.
Oh yes, the US is about freedom... freedom for the rich, slavery for everyone else.
Just ask Jay Rockefeller...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_family
I know. Every time I read this I think its Bill Gates.
Shouldn't a company have admins who can take care of security? Surely they know how to take their network offline if there is a problem.
But no, I guess we need to be babysat... way to go.
Last edited by jwjw1 on 29 Aug 2009 - 01:12
What facts? Have you read the bill?
"To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response."
... because broadband connections are so dangerous. Just ask Time Warner, that's why they want to put caps on them. Yes, it's all to stop teh terr0r and protect teh childrens, not because of $$$ and politics.
Grounding aircraft is FAR different than "grounding" information. That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Just one piece at a time, the government works to remove the freedoms we have. We don't realize it now, but when they have the authority to have control over it all ... what makes you think they won't? If they want you to think something's good for you, any dissenting opinions will be "shut down" as a "threat" to "national security". You're a foolish idiot if you think they won't do it ...
Exactly. BIG difference. HUGE...
-noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Any questions?
Any government that seeks the ultimate power is govern by dictatorship.
So ... had enough CHANGE yet?
Same thing happened a few years ago when MTV encouraged every uneducated, misinformed halfwit 18-year-old to "rock the vote." And what did we get out of that? Clinton. 'Nuff said!
This is what happens when people vote for "free ice cream."
I only hope we live long enough to correct it.
So ... had enough CHANGE yet?
Same thing happened a few years ago when MTV encouraged every uneducated, misinformed halfwit 18-year-old to "rock the vote." And what did we get out of that? Clinton. 'Nuff said!
This is what happens when people vote for "free ice cream."
I only hope we live long enough to correct it.
Better than the previous stooge, this guy is actually doing some good.
So ... had enough CHANGE yet?
Same thing happened a few years ago when MTV encouraged every uneducated, misinformed halfwit 18-year-old to "rock the vote." And what did we get out of that? Clinton. 'Nuff said!
This is what happens when people vote for "free ice cream."
I only hope we live long enough to correct it.
I think someone might have forgotten about the failures of George H.W. Bush.
Name it. What good has he done?
And just because I HAVE to say something about it, you guys are all CRAZY to think that universal healthcare is bad. Just cause you never got denied (yet) on your insurance coverage that you got quite the price tag on doesn't mean it can't happen to you. If the government gets in it, it will drive the insurance prices down, make the poor covered, and maybe even drive down overall cost of healthcare. I know what I'm talking about, I live in a country called Canada where I never have to care or bother myself with such issues. And funny enough, the few things that aren't publicly covered (like dentist care for anyone over 12) are the most expensive things since when private insurance covers certain things, the professionals take for granted that these companies with deep pockets can cover it, and therefore it drives prices up. This could seriously be one of the best things to ever happen to a country like the US, and all you guys can think of is "the government needs to stay out of my business", or "he wants us to turn into a communist country". Hey last I heard, buying a gun doesn't automatically make you a killer.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
-Dom Helder Camara
;?P
That my friend is Free Speech, part of Freedom, as messy as it may seem. It's not only allows you to voice your opinion, but alas, others to say things you disagree with.
53% of the voting American public or 66,882,230 people. Probably because nobody wanted to see a president die of old age in office and have the beauty pagent VP take office. The only thing she knew and still knows is that Russia can be seen from her house
Obama didn't come up with this bill, genius. Presidents don't write laws, go take a classe and learn how your government actually works before whining.
what happened to good people like washington, grover, polk and abe? if one of them was president today you definately wouldn't see any internet slander, bad talk etc... it's like our presidents these days are a joke. where's the real leadership now?? all great nations seem to fall some time or another, and ours already has (despite our grasp on being a super power) we're just a simple joke now.
If we keep going this way, I won't give it another 20 years though. We'll still be around, but we'll be a 2nd world country where all the high income earners will be out of the country because of taxes. Our country in many ways started on high taxes, and it may very well end on high taxes.
Unless there's another revolution, I guess ...
To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Let's not be reasonable though and learn about what this is really for and how it would work. Let's all scream and whine like mindless sheep about how our evil government is trying to oppress us. There is so much ignorance in this thread it's amazing.
That's NOT to say no one should worry, since anything Congress touches has the potential to be disastrous, especially if it has to do with tech. There's also the possibility that something could be slipped into legislation in the dark of night -- more than one person in DC would like to see some sort of control over on-line content, plus you have all the lobbyists from the movie & music industries with their agendas, so fears of this sort could be very valid. And what would be the ramifications overseas? Could pressure be maintained to continue fighting government interference & censorship, when/if we enact a law giving the pres control over the on/off switch?
I think it safe to say those are all concerns shared pretty widely in the tech world, along with fears of government-set security requirements rather than guidelines... a very concrete example of how slow moving bureaucracies can make us all less safe: for decades & decades by law every vehicle in the US had to have sealed beam headlights, long after far superior lighting was available. It isn't about politics, & shouldn't be -- it's about slow-moving, very often incompetent government agencies that ensure their own survival by always seeking to accumulate power... i.e. that species known as the bureaucrat. ;-)
.773:" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111
People around here LOVE to get hysterical.
Don't confuse them with actual facts!
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111
If you still doubt that, look at everyone's comments. It PROVES that Obama wants to take over our internets as the Supreme Overlord of Socialist Evil.
Oh, and Obama really fancies M.Bison's outfit too.
/s
How would this be any different to recent events where the Internet in certain countries was cut off amid controversial election results?
It's like Sky Net
The earth is going to hell in a hand-basket bigtime.... Press the red button and reboot the earth
As for the bill itself, it's so vaguely worded that we can't really draw many conclusions at this point. The part of the article that really worries me is that part that refers to the White House's proposed ability to periodically map private networks and demand information on the networks themselves. I bet that the NSA is just loving this.
The only really stupid thing here is why stuff like nuclear power plants are connected to the internet in the first place.
"Shutdown Internet"
"Are you sure you want to shut down the internet?"
LOL
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.